This isn’t right.

A number of sane people around the commentariat have been up in arms over the recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court in Murr v. Wisconsin. And with very, very good reason. We’ve dealt with this case here before as it’s played out through the lower courts, but as a refresher it deals with the situation encountered by Donna Murr and her siblings in Wisconsin. The family owned two small parcels of land along the St. Croix River. They had a cabin on one of the lots and the adjoining property was left vacant as an investment. But when they attempted to finally sell the vacant lot in 2004 they learned that the state had changed the rules on them, making it impossible to sell the land to anyone other than the county unless they combined the properties and relinquished the entire package.

The property in question had been valued at $400K. The county – the only entity legally entitled to buy it – offered them $40K.

Because the state, through changes in laws which did not apply when the family acquired the land, had completely gutted its worth, the Murr family sued to be properly compensated under the Takings Clause. With this week’s decision, those hopes are dashed. Eric Boehm at Reason explains what this is doing to the rights of property owners.

When governments issue regulations that undermine the value of property, bureaucrats don’t necessarily have to compensate property holders, the Supreme Court ruled Friday…

The ruling could have implications that go well beyond the 2.5 acres of land in Wisconsin.

Several western states filed amicus briefs in the case on behalf of the Murr family (as did the Reason Foundation, which publishes this blog). Though states like Nevada and Arizona did not have a direct interest in the Murrs’ ability to sell their vacant land, they saw the case as having important implications for conflicts over federal lands.

Many state governments own contiguous lots and large bodies of water near areas owned by the federal government (military bases, national parks, etc). If those government bodies are allowed to merge contiguous lots for regulatory purposes, the federal government could impose severe restrictions on state land and wouldn’t have to pay consequences, warned Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University who authored the amicus brief on behalf of those western states.

What we are seeing here is a continuation of what I still maintain is possible the worst ruling from the Supreme Court in the history of the nation, Kelo v. City of New London. That was the dark day when the Supremes ruled that the idea of “public use” in the Takings Clause could be reinterpreted into a Reverse Robin Hood scenario by defining it as the far more ambiguous “public benefit.” When that case was decided in 2005 the principal dissent was written by O’Connor, but in a separate dissent, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the following:

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.

This ruling is yet another weakening of the Takings Clause. And the reason I say this is a continuation of Kelo is that you need only look at who is voting on these rulings. In Kelo, the 5-4 decision was delivered by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer with the tie-breaking vote cast by Kennedy. Now, In Murr, the 5-3 decision came from Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan, (who replaced Stevens under Obama) and Sotomayor (who replaced Souter under Obama) with both the tie-breaking decision and the written opinion coming once again from Kennedy. Anyone seeing a pattern here?

It was 5-3 because Gorsuch wasn’t involved with the original hearing and didn’t vote. But even if he had, the Fifth Amendment still would have lost 5-4 yet again. It’s not enough just to keep hold of the seat that Justice Scalia occupied. Kennedy is unreliable in too many instances when given a choice between more power for the government over the individual or less. The other four liberals are lost causes, apparently never having seen a case of bigger government which they couldn’t celebrate. We need a real majority on the Supreme Court with conservative, small government principles in their hearts or these erosions of fundamental rights will continue.

This entry was posted in Misc. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. BobF says:

    And, we believe we live in a free country with our rights protected by a Constitution.

  2. Leonard Jones says:

    I remember, it t was Souter who was the tie-breaking vote in the Kelo decision,
    and he took holy hell for it! The RINO fuck waited for Obonzo to be sworn in
    before he retired only four years after Kelo.

    Justice Kennedy is in the same mold as Souter. Anthony Kennedy is 80, and
    Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg is 84. She is already drooling and suffering from senile
    dementia. I see no impediment to Trump winning a second term if he keeps
    his current pace of shredding the party of corruption.

    With Bryer at 78 and Thomas at 69, this will give President Trump a serious
    chance at replacing 2-3 Supreme Court Justices, and more if genuine
    originalist justices opt to retire with a Republican in the White House.

    I want EVERYONE reading this to understand that America dodged a bullet
    by rejecting the communist lesbian in the Mao Jacket! A net shift of just
    one more leftist justice on that court would have spelled DOOM for America.

    Here is a quote from Hugh Hewitt on the 2016 election: “The GOP has to win in
    2016, or the Supreme Court and indeed the entire judiciary becomes a permanent
    conveyor belt of collectivist whims.” This would have given the Stalinist cunt the
    stacked court that FDR lusted for in his attempt to create a socialist paradise
    in Americ back in the 30s. She would also have stacked every lower court
    in America as well!

  3. Wait for the news tomorrow Leonard – the gossip is that Kennedy is going to retire. Now, if we could just get Ruthie to stop eating her kale …

Comments are closed.